The defendant is charged [in count __]
with custodial interference in the second degree. The statute defining this
offense reads in pertinent part as follows:

a person is guilty of custodial
interference in the second degree when being a relative of a child who is less
than sixteen years old and intending to hold such child permanently or for a
protracted period and knowing that (he/she) has no legal right to do so,
(he/she) takes or entices the child from the child's lawful custodian.

For you to find the defendant guilty
of this charge, the state must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable
doubt:

Element 1 - Relative of the
childThe first element is that the
defendant is a relative of the child. "Relative"
means a parent, ancestor, brother, sister, uncle or aunt.

Element 2 - Child under 16The second element is that this
occurred prior to the child's sixteenth birthday.

Element 3 - IntentThe third element is that the
defendant specifically intended to hold the child permanently or for a
protracted period. A person acts "intentionally"
with respect to a result when (his/her) conscious objective is to cause such
result. <See
Intent: Specific, Instruction 2.3-1.>

Element 4 - Knowledge of no
legal rightThe fourth element is that the
defendant knew at the time that (he/she) had no legal right to take the child.
A person acts "knowingly"
with respect to conduct or to a circumstance when (he/she) is aware that
(his/her) conduct is of such nature or that such circumstance exists. <See
Knowledge, Instruction 2.3-3.>

Element 5 - Taken from legal
custodianThe fifth element is that the
defendant took or enticed the child from (his/her) lawful custodian.1

Conclusion

In summary, the state must prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that 1) the defendant was a relative of the child, 2)
the child was under 16 years of age, 3) the defendant intended to hold the child
permanently or for a protracted period, 4) (he/she) had no legal right to take
the child, and 5) the child was taken from (his/her) lawful custodian.

If you unanimously find that the state
has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of the crime of
custodial interference in the second degree, then you shall find the defendant
guilty. On the other hand, if you unanimously find that the state has failed to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt any of the elements, you shall then find the
defendant not guilty.
_______________________________________________________

1
If the legal custody of the child is an issue, the specific factual allegations
may need to be explained and/or a definition of lawful custodian provided which
may vary with the circumstances.